a complete cmp embedded package · • mcus/embedded mpus! • ... programming features are most...

A complete CMP embedded package

1999 Embedded Systems Programming Subscriber Study Mailed out 1,500 returned undeliverable 45 Base 1,455 returned unusable 17 returned usable 410 Total returned 427 Total preliminary report response rate: 29.3% (Conducted by Wilson Research Group)

1999 ESP Subscriber Study

Survey Coverage •  Programming Languages &

Host Operating Systems •  MCUs/Embedded MPUs •  DSPs •  Memories •  Software Protocols/Stacks •  Web Products/Tools •  In-Circuit Emulators •  Logic Analyzers •  Oscilloscopes •  Device programmers

•  RTOSes/Kernals •  Compilers •  Software Debuggers •  Software Configuration

Management Tools •  Single Board Computers •  Intellectual Property •  FPGAs/CPLDs •  HW/SW Co-Design •  Embedded Systems Work

Environments

160+ Questions Market & Mind Share

Programming Language Trends 1997 1998 1999

C 80.7% 81.4% 79.0% Assembly 70.4% 70.1% 61.0% C ++ 35.9% 39.4% 46.6% Visual Basic 13.0% 16.2% 14.4% Pascal 4.2% 2.6% 2.0% Ada 6.4% 4.9% 6.1% Java 6.1% 7.0% 9.3% HDL / VHDL 6.1% 5.2% 6.6% Basic 12.5% 9.3% 8.5% Forth 3.4% 2.3% 2.2% eC++ - - .7%

1997- 1999 ESP Subscriber Studies Base: 409 1997 345 1998 410 1999

Have you used an object-oriented methodology for your embedded designs in

the last 12 months?

Yes…………………. 47.3%


Are you considering an object-oriented methodology in the next 12 months?

Yes…………………. 69.0%

Base: 410

Which of the following object-oriented programming methodologies have you

used for your embedded designs? OMT/UML 44.8%

Booch 31.4%

Shlaer-Mellor 16.5%

SDL 5.7%

ROOM 2.1%

S/ART 1.0%

1999 ESP Subscriber Study Base: 194

Which FOUR of the following object-oriented programming features are most important to you in

your embedded designs?

Promotes Reuse 57.0% Encapsulation 56.0% Class inheritance 49.5% Programming tools available 45.7% Library available 30.2% Separation of use and implementation 30.2% Polymorphism 23.4% Function Overloading 19.6% Virtual functions 17.9% Direction of industry 16.5% Wide vendor acceptance and support

11.7% 1999 ESP Subscriber Study Base: 291

Computers used/planning to use as host machines

Have Used Plan to Use PC 90.0 % 90.5% UNIX Workstation 37.3% 37.3% DEC VAX 3.7% 2.4% Macintosh 2.7% 3.2%


Host Operating Systems in use by Embedded Developers

Have Used Plan to Use Any Windows (Net) 85.4% 85.4% Windows 3.1/95/98 61.0% 61.5% Windows NT 53.7% 57.3%

UNIX 32.3% 32.7% DOS 26.6% 28.8% Linux 14.6% 22.0% Mac-OS 2.7% 3.7%



Are you involved in evaluating, recommending, specifying, selecting, or purchasing the TARGET MPU/MCUs or DSPs used in your embedded design projects?

Yes……………... 78.5%

54.7% approve selection

Base: 410

In which of the following ways are you involved in evaluating, recommending, specifying,

selecting, or purchasing target MPU/MCUs used in your embedded design projects?

Evaluate products 83.5% Determine specifications 78.9% Part of decision-making committee

73.0% Specify manufacturer/chip 63.7% Approve Selection 54.7%


Which FIVE items are typically most important to you in selecting a MCU or

MPU for your embedded designs? ●  Software development tools 69.9% ●  Price 59.6% ●  Available I/O 41.3% ●  Code compatibility 39.8% ●  Hardware development tools

35.1% ●  Familiarity with architecture 33.2% ●  Documentation 28.9% ●  Company reputation 28.6%


Which of the following kinds of chips have you used in the last 12 months, or are you considering using in

the next 12 months for your embedded designs

●  CPU/DSP hybrid chips……………….. 56.6%

●  System-on-chip…………...…………... 23.7%

●  Media processor…………………………8.8% ●  Other……………………………………...4.9%


Are you involved with defining your embedded system architecture?

Yes…………… 82.7% No……………..17.3%

Base: 410 1999 ESP Subscriber Study

Chip Architecture Trends ��by number of designs

45%46%

62%

75%

62%

75%

8%

22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

8-bit 16-bit 32-bit 64-bit

Have UsedConsidering


Which 8-bit chip architectures (targets) have you used or are you considering for

your embedded projects? Have Used Considering

Intel 80XX, 80CXX 36.7% 21.9% Motorola 68HC11 30.0% 34.8% Microchip PIC16 29.4% 33.5% Atmel 80XX, 80CXX 15.0% 14.2% Motorola 68HC05 14.4% 12.9% Philips 80XX, 80CXX 12.8% 16.1% Intel 80C251 12.2% 15.5% Motorola 68XX 12.2% 12.3% Zilog Z8/80/180 12.2% 10.3% Microchip PIC17 11.7% 19.4% Dallas 80XX, 80CXX 10.6% 10.3% Atmel AVR RISC 8.3% 10.3% Motorola 68HC08 7.8% 11.6% 1999 ESP Subscriber

Study Base: 180, used 155, considering



Intel 8086/186 34.2% 25.5% AMD 186/188 16.8% 17.6% Motorola 68HC16 16.3% 23.4% Intel 8096/196/296 15.2% 16.5% Motorola 68HC12 14.1% 21.8% Siemens 80C166/167 9.2% 10.1% Hitachi H8 7.6% 9.0% Zilog Z380 2.7% 5.3% NEC 78K3, 78K4 2.2% -- Philips XA 1.6% 5.9% ST Micro ST 9/10 1.6% 2.1% WDC 65C16 1.1% 1.6% Toshiba TLCS-900 1.1% 1.6%

1999 ESP Subscriber Study Base: 184, used 188, considering



Intel Pentium 26.0% 19.7% Motorola 683XX 22.4% 20.7% Intel 386/486 22.0% 16.8% Intel Pentium II 20.9% 19.7% Motorola 680X0 17.3% 8.4% MIPS (any) 11.8% 12.3% IBM/Motorola PPC 6XX 11.4% 9.1% Motorola PPC 8XX 11.0% 18.8% Intel i960 11.0% 6.1% Intel Pentium III 9.4% 20.1% Motorola PPC 7XX 8.7% 13.9% AMD 386/486 7.9% 6.1% ARM (any) 6.7% 11.3% Motorola ColdFire 6.3% 10.0% 1999 ESP Subscriber

Study Base: 254, using 309, considering



Digital Alpha 25.0% 22.0% Motorola PowerPC 620 18.8% 28.6% Sun UltraSPARC 15.6% 17.6% IDT R46XX, R47XX 15.6% 11.0% IDT R5000 9.4% 9.9% NEC VR4300/5000 3.1% 7.7% QED RM5230/7000 3.1% 3.3% NEC MIPS R10000 --- 7.7% Toshiba MIPS R4400 --- 6.6% LSI Logic 4XXX --- 3.3% NKK R4645 --- ---

1999 ESP Subscriber Study Base: 32, using 91, considering

DSP use in 1999: Is your company currently designing embedded systems using digital signal processing chips? ��

1999 ESP Subscriber Study Base:410

Yes currently……………………………………..38.0% No, but plan to in the next 12 months……………6.6% No, but may consider in the next 12 months……..20.2% No, not using or considering using DSP chips in the future…………………………...29.3% Don’t know………………………………………...5.9%

Top DSP chips used/considering using for embedded designs

Have Used Considering

Any Texas Instruments (Net) 48.7% 43.2% Texas Instruments TMS 320C4XX/C5XX 23.7% 21.4% Texas Instruments TMS 320C3X 14.7% 12.8% Texas Instruments TMS 320C1X/C2X 10.3% 12.8% Texas Instruments TMS 320C6X 9.6% 17.3% Texas Instruments TMS 320C8X 2.6% 7.1% Any Analog (Net) 21.8% 24.4% Analog Devices ADSP 21XX(X) 14.7% 16.2% Analog Devices SHARC 9.6% 13.2% Any Motorola (Net) 16.0% 12.8% Motorola DSP 563XX 16.0% 12.8% Motorola DSP 566XX 3.8% 6.4% Motorola DSP9600XX 3.2% - Motorola DSP568XX 2.6% 7.5% Motorola/Lucent StarCore - 2.6% Any Lucent (Net) 3.2% 5.6%

1999 ESP Subscriber Study Base:156 have used 266 considering

Don't Know5.8%

Main microproc

essor35.3%

Co-processor

59.0%

In which way do you

typically use DSPs?


Don’t Know14.1%

Fixed Point55.8%

Floating Point30.1%

What type of DSP do you typically use?


What were the target memory requirements for your last embedded

development project?


3.2% 3.9%

16.1% 16.6% 13.9%

30.8%

10.2%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

<1k 1k-7k 8k-63k 64k-511k512k-1MB 1MB-32MB

32MB<

Base: 410

NO35.5%

YES64.5%

Are you in any way involved in evaluating, recommending, specifying, selecting or

purchasing memories in your embedded design projects?


Way involved in purchase of memories used in embedded design

Determine Specifications ! ! !84.3%!Evaluate Products ! ! ! !78.2%!Part of decision-making committee! !70.1%!

Specify Manufacturer/Chip ! ! !66.3%!Approve Selection ! ! ! !61.6%!

All of the Above ! ! ! ! !48.3%!


What kinds of ON-CHIP memories are you using or considering for your embedded designs?

60.6%61.0%52.0%

67.9%

43.7%47.1%

35.5%

29.4%31.8%32.4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

SRAM Flash EEPROM EPROM DRAM

UsingConsidering


Kinds of stand-alone memory used/considering using in embedded designs

63.0%

70.9%

53.5%56.9%

49.5% 50.5%

36.7%31.5%

37.9%

42.2%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

Flash SRAM EEPROM EPROM DRAM

UsingConsidering


Top 10 flash memory vendors used/considering using in embedded designs

Using Considering AMD 48.1% 44.8% Intel 35.4% 32.8% Atmel 21.8% 25.4% SanDisk 6.8% 8.2% Texas Instruments 6.8% 12.1% Motorola 6.3% 9.5% Toshiba 5.8% 8.6% Micron Technology 5.3% 7.3% M-Systems 3.9% 6.0% Samsung 3.4% 5.6%

1999 ESP Subscriber Study Base: 206 have used 327 considering

Do you develop embedded systems that are networked or web-enabled?


34.9%

12.9%

20.2%

32.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Yes Not, but planto

No, butconsidering

No

Top 10 Software protocols/stacks used/considering using embedded systems Use currently Considering

TCP/IP 83.9% 78.9% FTP 37.1% 28.0% Proprietary 29.4% 18.6% SNMP 28.0% 17.9% UDP 27.3% 23.3% PPP 26.6% 26.5% ICMP 18.2% 10.8% X.25 9.1% 9.0% Token Ring 7.7% 5.4% IGMP 5.6% 2.9% 1999 ESP Subscriber Studies Base: 143 use currently

Are you designing Web technology/capability into your embedded systems

applications?

Don't know4.6%

Considering27.1%

Plan to11.0%Yes

13.9%

Not planning to

43.4%


Top 10 software protocols/stacks vendors using/considering using

Using Considering Wind River 30.1% 22.2% Berkeley Software 8.4% 6.5% QNX 6.3% 10.4% Pharlap 5.6% 5.0% Integrated Systems 4.9%

5.7% Lynx Real-Time 4.2% 4.7% Pacific Softworks 3.5% 2.5% US Software 2.8% 1.8% RouterWare 2.8% - Microware 2.1% 2.5%

1999 ESP Subscriber Study Base: 143 using 279 considering

Top 10 vendors of Web products/tools used/considering using

Using Considering Wind River 24.6% 28.6% PharLap 8.8% 10.3% QNX 8.8% 14.1% Caldera 8.8% 9.9% IBM 5.3% 9.4% emWare 5.3% 6.6% Agranat 3.5% 1.4% Allegro Software 3.5% 4.2% Rapid Logic 3.5% 1.9% Pacific Softworks 3.5% 3.3%

1999 ESP Subscriber Study Base: 57 using 213 considering

In-Circuit Emulator (ICE) use in 1999:��used or considering using

Yes57.8%

Don't Know4.6%

No37.6%


Top ICE features (1999) Ease of use………………..……………...

55.3% Price…………….……………….………... 44.3% Hardware breakpoints..…………..………42.6% Software included with ICE……………...

40.1% Documentation…….………….…………..

25.3% Integration with other tools.…..………….

24.1% Trace buffer size….………………………

23.2% User interface..……………………………

23.2% JTAG or BDM support..…………………. 20.7% Multi-level triggering..……….....………...

19.0% Company reputation...……………………

18.1%


Both Hardware &

Software Debug77.6%

Hardware Debug5.1%

Software Debug17.3%

How do you use/plan to use your ICE?


8-bit ICE usage Have Used Considering

Nohau 34.3% 38.4% Microchip 17.5% 26.8% Motorola 14.6% 26.8% MetaLink 10.9% 14.3% Huntsville Microsystems 8.0% 14.3% Texas Instruments 7.3% 13.4% Microtek International 6.6% 9.8% TechTools 5.8% 8.9% Hitex Development Tools 5.1% 10.7% Grammer Engine 4.4% 4.5% Ceibo 3.6% 7.1% Ashling 3.6% 6.2% Avocet 3.6% 16.1% HiTech Equipment 3.6% 8.0% 1999 ESP Subscriber Study Base: 137, used 112, considering

16-bit and 32-bit ICE usage Have Used Considering

Hewlett-Packard 18.0% 29.8% Applied Microsystems 17.0% 21.4% Nohau 14.5% 27.9% Motorola 11.0% 22.3% EST 10.5% 10.7% Huntsville Microsystems (HMI) 5.5% 10.7% Microtek International 4.5% 13.0% Hitex Development Tools 4.5% 7.0% Hitachi 4.5% 7.0% American Arium 3.5% 6.0% Orion 3.0% 5.1% Softools 2.0% 3.3% Lauterbach 1.5% 5.1% Pentica Systems 1.5% 1.4% Ceibo 1.5% 1.4%


Have you used or considered using a logic analyzer for your embedded designs?

YES………………………………….. 58.5% NO…………………………………… 36.3% DON’T KNOW………………..…….. 5.1%


Important Attributes in Selecting Logic Analyzers

Triggering 48.8% Number of Channels 45.0% Acquisition Memory 43.8% User Interface 32.5% Price 30.4% Speed 22.1% Connection to Source Level Debugger 18.3% Company Reputation 13.3% Software Performance Analysis/ Ties to Emulation 11.7% Documentation 10.4% Prior Experience 9.6% Support/Training 6.7%


Both Hardware

& Software

Debugging75.4%

Software Debug9.2%

Hardware Debug14.6%

How do you use/plan to use a logic analyzer?


Which logic analyzer vendors have you used or are considering using for your embedded designs?

Have Used Considering Hewlett Packard 74.6% 77.5% Tektronix 44.6% 62.1% Fluke 6.2% - Advanced Micro Computer Sys 2.1% 6.7% Digital Logic Instruments 1.7% 2.5% Boulder Creek 1.2% 2.1% Logical Devices 0.8% 5.4% American Arium 0.8% 2.9% Yokogawa Digital Corp 0.4% 1.2%


Don't Know2.7%

Yes68.3%

No29.0%

Have you used or are planning to use an oscilloscope for your embedded designs?


For which of the following activities do you use/plan to use an oscilloscope?

Hardware Debug 28.9% Software Debug 4.3% Hardware & Software Debug 66.8%


Top oscilloscope vendors you have used or would consider for your embedded designs?

Have Used Considering Tektronix 85.0% 79.6% Hewlett-Packard 44.6% 64.3% LeCroy 11.1% 18.9% Fluke 10.4% 24.6% B+K Precision 4.6% 7.5% National Instruments 2.1% 8.2% Gould Instrument Systems 1.4% 5.7% Yokogawa 1.4% 3.6% Analogic - 1.1%


Don't Know 4.4%

Yes59.0%

No36.6%

Have you used or are considering using a device programmer for your embedded designs?


Top 10 Device programmer vendors have used/considering using

Have used Considering Data I/O 38.0% 45.5% Needham’s Electronics 21.1% 19.8% BP Microsystems 15.7% 19.0% Microchip 12.4% 14.0% Logical Devices 6.2% 9.9% Xeltex 6.2% 5.4% Advin Systems 5.8% 6.2% Parallax 5.4% 7.0% Dataman Programmers 4.1%

7.4% EE Tools 2.9% 3.3%


RTOS Marketshare history

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Wind RiverISIMicrotecQNX

1993 - 1998 ESP Subscriber Studies

No49.3%

Yes48.8%

In the past 12 months, have you used a commercial off-the-shelf real-time operating system (RTOS), ��kernel, or executive for your embedded designs?


Don't Know10.5%

No31.5%

Yes58.0%

Considering using a commercial RTOS in next 12 months:

Base:410

What is your primary reason for NOT using a commercial off-the-shelf real-time operating system ��

(RTOS), kernel, or executive? •  Already using proprietary OS

19.3% •  Not a multitasking application

14.4% •  Cost - royalties 6.9% •  Code size 5.9% •  Investment in legacy code or OS

5.0% •  Cost - one time 4.0% •  Execution Speed 4.0% •  Overhead 3.5% 1999 ESP Subscriber Study Base: 202

What THREE items below are most important to you in selecting a RTOS/kernel? Speed/performance 36.8% Code size 34.5% Price 31.0% Integration with other tools 31.0% Documentation 23.6% Ease of use 21.7% Company Reputation 19.8% Part of IDE 15.5% Scaleability 15.1% Standard API 14.3%


8-bit RTOS Vendor Marketshare��

RTX (Keil) 11.6% Nucleus (Accelerated Tech) 4.3% VMEexec (Motorola) 4.3% Byte-BOS (Byte-BOS) 2.9% RTXC (Embedded Systems Products) 2.9% SuperTask! (US Software) 2.9% pF/x (Forth, Inc.) 2.9%


16 & 32-bit RTOS Vendor Marketshare VxWorks (Wind River) 44.7% PSOSystem (ISI) 17.4% Windows NT (Microsoft) 13.7% LynxOS (Lynx) 11.6% QNX (QNX Software) 10.5% VRTX (Mentor Graphics) 10.0% Windows CE (Microsoft) 8.4% OS-9 (Microware Systems) 5.8% Nucleus (Accelerated) 5.3% RTXC (Embedded Sys Products)

4.7% TNT (Pharlap) 4.2%


Have used/considering using cross compiler for embedded designs

83.7%

12.2%4.1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Yes No Don't Know


Top Ten cross-compiler features 1997 1998

1999 Code size……………………38.7%….40.0%….34.7% Speed/optimization…………41.9%….44.7%….

33.8% Platform supported…………54.6%….27.8%….32.7% Price………………………….28.9%….27.5%….24.8% Integration with other tools...41.9%….34.9%….

23.3% Integrated dev. environment (IDE)……………

21.3% Past use……………………..12.7%….14.1%….20.1% Documentation……………...30.6%….29.0%….20.1% Libraries Provided………………………………19.2% Company reputation………..23.2%….15.7%….

14.9%

1997, 1998 & 1999 ESP Subscriber Studies Base: 343

Top Ten 8-bit & 16-bit Cross-Compiler Marketshare

Have Used Considering Microchip 16.6% 19.4% Keil 16.6% 20.9% IAR Systems Software 11.5% 17.5% Franklin 10.2% 12.3% Archimedes 9.8% 15.6% Tasking 8.1% 11.4% HI-TECH Software 7.2% 10.9% Byte Craft 7.2% 5.2% Cosmic 6.4% 7.1% Avocet/2500 AD 5.1% 10.4% *22.1% use their chip vendor’s cross compiler

1999 ESP Subscriber Studies Base: 235 have used 211 considering

Top Ten 32-bit Cross-Compiler Marketshare

Have Used Considering Wind River 23.7% 32.8% Microsoft (for Windows CE) 12.3%

16.8% Diab Data 11.0% 13.1% Cygnus Solutions 10.5% 10.1% Green Hills 10.5% 20.5% Mentor Graphics (Microtec) 7.8%

10.1% Motorola 7.8% 15.3% Metrowerks 6.8% 13.1% Rational 5.9% 9.7% Software Development Systems 5.9% 7.5% *9.6% use their chip vendors cross compiler

1999 ESP Subscriber Studies Base: 235 have used 211 considering

32-bit Cross-Compiler usage 1997 1998 1999

Wind River 10% 12% 23% Microsoft (CE) --- 8% 12% Diab Data 4% 8% 11% Cygnus 6% 4% 10% Green Hills 8% 8% 10% Chip vendor’s --- 5% 9% Microtec 17% 18% 7% Motorola 9% 3% 7% Metrowerks 6% Rational 4% 3% 5% SDS 5% 4% 5% MetaWare 5% 3% 4%

1997, 1998 & 1999 ESP Subscriber Studies

Software debugger use in 1999:��using or considering

Yes68.3%

Don't Know6.8%

No24.9%


Top software debugger features (1999) Compilers supported……………….………

51.4% Complex breakpointing…………..………..

36.1% Integrated dev environment (IDE)………..

34.3% Price/cost………………….………………...

31.4% RTOS awareness………………………….. 28.9% Real time complex triggering...…………...

26.4% Past use/prior experience…………………

22.1% Documentation……………………………..

21.8% Execution speed…………………………....

18.9% Low I/O, interrupt requirements in target...

18.9% Low memory required in target..…………..

16.4%


Debugger usage Have Used Considering Microsoft 20.4% 17.5% Wind River 20.4% 31.1%

Borland 13.9% 14.6% SDS (Single Step) 10.0% 12.5% Green Hills 8.6% 12.5% Mentor Graphics (Microtec) 7.1% 8.2% Motorola 7.1% 12.5% Hewlett-Packard 6.8% 14.6% Cygnus Solutions 6.8% 10.4% Phar Lap 6.4% 12.5% Keil 5.4% 7.9% Paradigm 4.6% 9.6% Metrowerks 4.6% 9.6%

1999 ESP Subscriber Studies Base:280

Have used/considering using a software configuration management or version control tool

YES 57.6% NO 36.8% Don’t Know 5.6%


Top 10 Software configuration management or version control vendors used/would consider using

Using Considering

Microsoft (SourceSafe) 31.8% 34.3% Rational Software (Clear Case) 20.8% 33.5% Intersolv 20.3% 18.2% SCCS/RCS 19.5% 21.2% MKS 11.9% 19.9% Proprietary 3.4% 4.2% Continuous Software 2.5%

5.9% HP (SoftBench) 1.7% 5.9% Starbase 1.3% 1.7% Computer Associates 0.8%

2.5%


Base: 236

Have you used a single board computer for your embedded designs in the last 12 months, or

are you planning or considering using one for your embedded designs in the next 12 months?

YES 38.3% NO 59.8% Don’t Know 2.0%

Base:410 1999 ESP Subscriber Study

Which FOUR items below are most important to you in your selection of a

single board computer? Performance 52.2% Software & Development Tools Support 52.2% Available I/O 51.0% Price 49.0% Processor on board 43.9% Documentation 26.1% Company reputation 23.6% Size/Footprint 21.7% Compatibility w/ previous designs 21.7% Ruggedness 19.1% Delivery/Availability 18.5% Mil Spec 5.7%


SBC on-board functions used/considering Have Used Considering

Multiple serial ports 51.0% 58.6% Analog/digital 45.9% 53.5% Flash 43.9% 52.2% Ethernet 10 BaseT 42.0% 44.6% Communications 41.4% 50.3% Parallel 28.7% 37.6% Single serial port 27.4% 18.5% Video 22.5% 33.8% Ethernet 100 BaseT 24.2% 42.0% Mass Storage 21.7% 26.8% Graphics 18.5% 29.3% DSP 17.2% 28.0% SCSI 2 10.8% 18.5% SCSI 1 8.9% 8.3%


Which of the following backplane bus standards have used in the last 12 months or are considering using in the next 12 months?

Have Used Considering PCI 40.1% 59.9% VME 33.8% 36.3% ISA 33.1% 30.6% cPCI 10.8% 25.5% EISA 5.1% 7.0% STD 4.5% 8.3% VXI 3.2% 5.1% Multibus I/II 1.3% 4.5%


Non-backplane bus standards used/considering using

Have Used Considering PCI 28.0% 40.1% PC/104 24.8% 29.9% Motherboard 17.2% 16.6% USB 13.4% 42.7% PC/104+ 9.6% 20.4% IEEE 1394 (Firewire) 8.9% 30.6%


What compact PCI (cPCI) board vendors have you used or would consider using for your

embedded designs?


Motorola 47.1% 57.5% Ziatech 23.5% 25.0% Force 17.6% 27.5% VMIC 11.8% 7.5% Radisys 5.9% 25.0% SBS 5.9% 15.0% Sun 5.9% 15.0% Gespac 5.9% 2.5% PEP Modular 5.9% 10.0% National Instruments - 20.0% Texas Micro - 10.0%


VME board vendors used/would consider using

Have Used Considering Motorola Computer Grp 54.7%

59.6% Force 28.3% 31.6% VMIC 18.9% 17.5% Radstone 15.1% 21.1% SBS 15.1% 21.1% Radisys 15.1% 19.3% Xycom 13.2% 14.0% Mercury Computer Sys 11.3%

21.1% Themis 9.4% 10.5% Artesyn(Heurikon) 9.4% 10.5% DY-4 9.4% 19.3% Rockwell Automation 5.7% 10.5% Synergy 3.8% 10.5%

1999 ESP Subscriber Study Base: 53, have used 57, considering

Is your company currently designing embedded systems using Intellectual

Property (IP)?

18.3%

3.7%

11.5%

44.4%

22.2%

0%

5%10%

15%

20%25%

30%

35%

40%45%

Yes No, butplan to

No, butmay

No, anddon't plan

to

Don'tknow

Base 410 1999 ESP Subscriber Study

Types of IP used for embedded designs

◆  32-bit processor core 62.7% ◆  8-bit processor core

22.7% ◆  16-bit processor core 16.0% ◆  64-bit processor core 5.3% ◆  Other complex functions

–  (PCI, MPEG, etc.) 25.3%

Base 75 1999 ESP Subscriber Study

Is your company designing embedded systems using programmable logic

(FPGAs/CPLDs)?

3.4%

10.7%

47.8%

10.5% 27.6%

YesPlan toMay ConsiderNoDon't Know


Which FPGA/CPLD vendors have you used or would you consider for your embedded

designs?


Xilinx 54.6% 42.9% Altera 39.3% 33.5% Actel 15.3% 11.8% Atmel 14.8% 13.4% Lattice (Vantis) 14.3% 13.8% Cypress 13.3% 14.2% Lucent 5.6% 8.7% Microchip 4.1% 6.3% Philips 3.1% 4.3% Waferscale 2.6% 3.1%

1999 ESP Subscriber Study Base: 196 Have Used 254, considering

What are your three favorite debug tools for embedded development?

•  Software debugger 71.7% •  In-Circuit Emulator 59.8% •  Logic Analyzer 45.4% •  Oscilloscope 35.1% •  Simulation/modeling tools

33.7% •  ROM Emulator 13.7% •  Coverification/codesign tools 7.6%


HW/SW co-design or coverification tool vendors used/would consider using

Using Considering Cadence (Alta Group) 7.8% 11.0% Mentor Graphics 7.3% 9.5% Synopsis (Eagle Design) 5.1% 9.8% SES 0.7% 1.5% Summit Design (Simulation Tech) 0.7% 2.4% CPU Technology 0.7% 2.0% CARDtools 0.2% 0.5% Gaio 0.2% 0.7%


a complete cmp embedded package · • mcus/embedded mpus! • ... programming features are most...

Documents